• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Clinton over 2016 Russia allegations

Like the originator.
It think it is preferable to criticize his actions, but a line is crossed when we make it about him. Remember. When Trump goes away, his following will still be there. Getting rid of Trump only takes out the current leader of that anti-government sentiment. The cult will still exist, and simply search for a new voice to tell them what they want to hear.

It would be better to make it about values. What defines the MAGA cult?
 
It think it is preferable to criticize his actions, but a line is crossed when we make it about him. Remember. When Trump goes away, his following will still be there. Getting rid of Trump only takes out the current leader of that anti-government sentiment. The cult will still exist, and simply search for a new voice to tell them what they want to hear.

It would be better to make it about values. What defines the MAGA cult?
Fascism.

Seriously, if you look at what "fascism" is and does, and you look at what MAGA folks project, they are indistinguishable. Fear of "others", destruction of "the system", racism, unquestioned loyalty, jingoism, autocratic processes. It's all there. "Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen." What Is Fascism? (Council on Foreign Relations) "In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests."
 
Fascism.

Seriously, if you look at what "fascism" is and does, and you look at what MAGA folks project, they are indistinguishable. Fear of "others", destruction of "the system", racism, unquestioned loyalty, jingoism, autocratic processes. It's all there. "Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen." What Is Fascism? (Council on Foreign Relations) "In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests."

That is all true. And what is equally true is that fascists never admit they are fascists. So calling them that does not cause them to stop or rethink what they are doing.

We have to keep it impersonal and argue for the truth. They think the mainstream news is fake. That's a good place to start. We can't have much understanding between left and right if each side doesn't believe the same facts. Boil it down to basics.

They say the election was stolen. But they can't prove it. Well, that seems like a no brainer. They should be reminded that it is not reasonable to claim things which are not supported in fact. All Americans should agree that Joe Biden is the president. No proof? No reasonable argument otherwise.

If they make an unreasonable argument simply say so. If they go personal don't engage on that level. Call out the act of going personal as changing the subject. Or simply cut it off if it's too annoying. It is designed to be annoying; and frequently used by those who are losing the argument just to blow up the argument. No different than 'accidentally' overturning the game board when losing the game. If they try to change the subject call that out and bring it right back. If they try to claim a bunch of evidence, point out that it is insufficient evidence, or it was already considered and rejected in a court of law, and that the time of legally challenging the election has expired. The election stands and the facts support it. Beliefs otherwise are without basis.

When you have the facts on your side, using them is a winning argument. Allowing the conversation to go elsewhere only detracts from the facts.

The truth is the argument.
 
That is all true. And what is equally true is that fascists never admit they are fascists. So calling them that does not cause them to stop or rethink what they are doing.

We have to keep it impersonal and argue for the truth. They think the mainstream news is fake. That's a good place to start. We can't have much understanding between left and right if each side doesn't believe the same facts. Boil it down to basics.

They say the election was stolen. But they can't prove it. Well, that seems like a no brainer. They should be reminded that it is not reasonable to claim things which are not supported in fact. All Americans should agree that Joe Biden is the president. No proof? No reasonable argument otherwise.

If they make an unreasonable argument simply say so. If they go personal don't engage on that level. Call out the act of going personal as changing the subject. Or simply cut it off if it's too annoying. It is designed to be annoying; and frequently used by those who are losing the argument just to blow up the argument. No different than 'accidentally' overturning the game board when losing the game. If they try to change the subject call that out and bring it right back. If they try to claim a bunch of evidence, point out that it is insufficient evidence, or it was already considered and rejected in a court of law, and that the time of legally challenging the election has expired. The election stands and the facts support it. Beliefs otherwise are without basis.

When you have the facts on your side, using them is a winning argument. Allowing the conversation to go elsewhere only detracts from the facts.

The truth is the argument.
I may agree in principle, but that is not how the world works. I have a whole thread on that in the Loft.

Moreover, I think it is appropriate to apply applicable labels to particular behavior. We ignored fascism in our ranks prior to WWII, and it hurt the country. If we ignore it here, or fail to address it properly, we are hurting the country. Biden is being polite by calling it "semi".
 
Before Trump, Republicans were against frivolous lawsuits. But that is not the case anyone. Arizona Republican candidates Kari Lake and Mark Finchem filed a frivolous lawsuit against the vote-counting machines in this state. That lawsuit was dismissed recently.

https://www.courthousenews.com/arizona-gop-candidates-lose-bid-to-ban-exploitable-voting-machines/
PHOENIX (CN) — A federal judge in Arizona dismissed a suit Friday seeking to ban electronic voting machines ahead of the November midterm election, brought by Republican candidates who claim the machines may have security flaws.

In the suit, Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem claimed an injunction to stop the use of voting machines was necessary since the "voting system does not reliably provide trustworthy and verifiable election results." Former President Donald Trump — a frequent purveyor of baseless election fraud claims — has endorsed Lake and Finchem in their respective races.

Lake and Finchem claimed that voting on paper ballots and hand-counting those votes was the only efficient and secure method for proceeding in November.
 
Problem is, both sides won't, possibly can't, do that. Sadly, at this point, I think the result will be secession and/or civil war.
It is definitely headed more towards that than away, but no done deal. We need to insist on respectful dialog, avoid being judgmental, and simply call out wrongdoing and falsehoods wherever they threaten our democracy.

If anybody wants to fight our government I hope they would reconsider, because that has been tried and many have died. Nobody has taken over our government by force, and anyone who tries will fail if our formidable forces have anything to do with it.

I have no interest in fighting anybody. I think America is already great and we just need to make it greater. Most of the complaints of the right seem to be based on disliking other people. Immigrants, the poor, liberals, Muslims, Jews, Women's advocates, LGBTQ, Black people. I don't see how being mean to other people or telling them how to live makes America great.
 
1662840948928.png
1) Given that Trump has gradually morphed into becoming a "PARODY OF HIMSELF," I've always wondered what's the common denominator that links the self-proclaimed "STABLE GENIUS" and his "MAGMA" supporters!

2) Donald J Trump's words and actions appear to satisfy all 30 of the criteria on the "NARCISSIST CHECKLIST" - assuming that his loyal "CULT" following all share at least some of these traits, that would explain as to why his supporters would consider his "aberrant" behaviour to be abnormal, because they share much the same "mindset!"

3) Prior to "THE AGE OF TRUMP," the disapproval of the American public had served to suppress many of those same "ANTI-SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS" found on the "NARCISSISTIC CHECKLIST!"

4) Trump's rise to prominence and 4 years in the White House, however, provided him with the nationwide venue and media coverage to "OPEN THE FLOODGATES" - providing those already harbouring latent narcissistic tendencies with "PERMISSION" to "RELEASE THE KRAKEN," and attempt to impose their warped sense of reality on society as the new normal!

5) One should never assume that Trump and his supporters feel obliged to "PLAY-BY-THE-SAME-SET-OF-RULES" that they impose on everyone else - given that empathy, personal insights and sense of guilt are all considered signs of weakness for "LOSERS," there are no rules, just "WINNING" at any cost!
 
Last edited:


--

Mr. Trump appears to be keeping his losing record intact, since his 2020 election law suits.
Frivolous litigation is a tactic he uses to deflect awareness of his prevarications.
 
i bet you cant even back that up with a legal argument
Can you back up your argument? Can you explain in 500 words or less, how Texas had the right to sue Pennsylvania over Pennsylvania's election laws?
What harm was caused to Texas? One must be able to show harm to have standing in a court of law. If you ram your car into my house, I have grounds to sue you.
If you ram your car into my neighbors house, I have no grounds to sue you. What if California sued Texas over it's lax gun laws?
 
Can you back up your argument? Can you explain in 500 words or less, how Texas had the right to sue Pennsylvania over Pennsylvania's election laws?
What harm was caused to Texas? One must be able to show harm to have standing in a court of law. If you ram your car into my house, I have grounds to sue you.
If you ram your car into my neighbors house, I have no grounds to sue you. What if California sued Texas over it's lax gun laws?
Actually, California might have a case, since many of the illegal guns going into California are coming from Texas.
 
A bizarre lie. The judge did not rule that nobody had standing. Just that Texas did not.
I can briefly explain the "no standing by Texas" decision. Texas could not show that it suffered any injury by Pennsylvania because the Pennsylvania law and its implementation only affected Pennsylvania citizens, not Texans. Therefore, Texas had no standing (legal reason) to complain.

ETA: 911 Sparky explained it quite well. I didn't read that explanation until after posting the above.
 
good point on the 10th, (have to think about that one) but (ex) when I am voting for a candidate and another voter casts an illegal vote for the same - I am harmed (my vote effectively cancelled) -the basis for the harm claim..Tx is harmed if PA allows improper votes to be cast since electors from both states are casting votes

It's all moot. I did see the PA Supreme Court directly ruled against their own state Constituion requirements
A lower appellate court earlier this year ruled in favor of the GOP officials, saying that permitting no-excuse mail voting through a statutory change violated the state constitution and court precedent dating back to the 1920s.

But in Tuesday’s majority opinion for the state Supreme Court, Justice Christine Donohue wrote that the Pennsylvania General Assembly “is endowed with great legislative power, subject only to express restrictions in the Constitution.”

Somewhere there needs to be a remedy, but we aren't going to get it as SCOTUS is blowing off original jurisdication under standing..Im no fan of Trumps continual inability to accept the results, b ut if thre is no remedy people do crazy shit like 1/6
The remedy is for a Pennsylvanian who has legitimate proof of harm to bring an action. Easy peasy.
 
Last edited:
The remedy is for a Pennsylvanian who has legitimate proof of harm to bring an action. Easy peasy.
I don't think that those arguing that there is some chimeric "standing" for Texas understand either the 10th Amendment, or standing. It's all about wanting to get their preferred results.

The argument raised in the Pennsylvania case were convoluted, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the ultimate court to determine interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. They did so in no uncertain terms.
 
Something about this woman makes me disbelieve her...intensely!
She just oozes sleaze, doesn't she? But, she's digging Trump such a hole! She should keep it up.
 
She just oozes sleaze, doesn't she? But, she's digging Trump such a hole! She should keep it up.


She looks like she wants to go down on him.

The giveaway is "to tell you the truth...."

My grandpa told me anyone who has to tell you they're honest, isn't. Honest men do not question nor need to display their honesty.

As a lawyer she shows great, mongoloid, knuckle dragging stupidity. Never raise 'truth' at all. The mere fact she needs to keep on saying it demonstrates that she is not exactly roommates with the truth
 
Fascism.

Seriously, if you look at what "fascism" is and does, and you look at what MAGA folks project, they are indistinguishable. Fear of "others", destruction of "the system", racism, unquestioned loyalty, jingoism, autocratic processes. It's all there. "Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen." What Is Fascism? (Council on Foreign Relations) "In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests."
 
after SCOTUS refused to hear Tx vs. PA (over standing) - i gave up on the courts
How could Texas have standing in a Pennsylvania run election? The judge threw it out because it was bogus.
 
As a lawyer she shows great, mongoloid, knuckle dragging stupidity. Never raise 'truth' at all. The mere fact she needs to keep on saying it demonstrates that she is not exactly roommates with the truth
Apparently not even passing acquaintances.
 
Not just lost. Laughed at by the judge:

"Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way."
[...]
As [the defendants] view it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” (Id.). I agree.
[...]
First, the pleading itself. A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Each claim must be stated in numbered paragraphs, and each numbered paragraph limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs. It contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 “ABC Corporations” identified as fictitious and unknown entities. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
[...]
More troubling, the claims presented in the Amended Complaint are not warranted under existing law. In fact, they are foreclosed by existing precedent, including decisions of the Supreme Court. To illustrate, I highlight here just two glaring problems with the Amended Complaint. There are many others. But these are emblematic of the audacity of Plaintiff’s legal theories and the manner in which they clearly contravene binding case law.
[...]
Many of the Amended Complaint’s characterizations of events are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached. For instance, the contention that former FBI director James Comey, senior FBI officials, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “overzealously targeted” Plaintiff and conspired to harm him through appointment of special counsel are strikingly similar to the conclusory and formulaic allegations found deficient in the seminal Supreme Court case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances.
Did the judge actually laugh, like in court? 😂

Oh man, where is Rudy, just as the follow up joke 😂

What a clown car of attorneys
 
Back
Top Bottom